This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.

Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.

Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.

"old = original"

Strawman. That is not stated at all. If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity. It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to. But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations. Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible. The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety. Just another interesting tidbit.

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.

Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.

Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.

"old = original"

Strawman. That is not stated at all. If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity. It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to. But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations. Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible. The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety. Just another interesting tidbit.

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.

Curious. How old do you think the Earth is and why?How old do you think the Universe is and why?Just asking.

This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.

Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.

Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.

"old = original"

Strawman. That is not stated at all. If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity. It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to. But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations. Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible. The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety. Just another interesting tidbit.

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.

I was not talking to you about the 'old = original'.

I do, however, note your complete disregard for any of the points I made.

You have failed to show how 'many copies' (whether orally memorized or written) = 'accurate and correct'.

It does not.

You have failed to show how the New Testament (as claimed in the article you quoted) is corroborated in any meaningful way by other historical documents. In fact, the New Testament is specifically disputed by the majority of historical documents. heck, the simple fact that Egyptian (and Sumerian and Chinese) writing exists before, during, and after the flood handily negates that.

You have failed to show any how the New Testament can be internally consistent when it is not. There's a list of at least 100 internal contradictions, any time you want to start on them.

The best argument I have heard about all of this is from apologists (like yourself) who claim that some parts of the Bible are literal and some parts are not. I have yet to hear anyone state how they can tell.

You made claims (well, you linked to someone who made claims) that were so easily refuted, it's surprising that you haven't heard the refutations. Though I guess if you ignore anyone who says stuff you don't agree with it gets easier.

I'll take from this that you cannot refute any of my claims. Now run along, I'm sure Bible study is coming up and you wouldn't want any real facts to get in the way of your study of myth.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian. I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves. Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact. Get into the early church father's. Eye opener.

Carry on....

--------------"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian. I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves. Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact. Get into the early church father's. Eye opener.

Carry on....

Just flounce already!

there is not a SINGLE scripture attributed to a first hand eyewitness of the events regarding the J man.

Ever heard of the Q document?

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian. I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves. Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact. Get into the early church father's. Eye opener.

Carry on....

Fail... again... or is it still?

You say there is much evidence of this. Name one person who is a known author of a book of the New Testament who also can be shown to have known Jesus.

You claimed it, you back it up.

Of course, you can't. We all know that. This is how evidence works. You make a claim (I made several) and I defended them. You make claims and refuse to even talk about them other than 'that's obvious'.

Does that remind you of anyone around here FtK? Hint, it's not a pro-science person.

Anyway, run along, when you decide to answer questions or actually engage in what the conversation is about, then feel free to come back.

You now have several challenges to you (all of which YOU started and all of which YOU are running away from) feel free to start catching up.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Carm? Carm? Seriously? The earlier link to the tortured apologetics that redefined slavery was bad enough, but this...wow. Carm is up there with AIG in terms of reality (hint - they ain't near it). Why not link to some serious scholarship - you know, people who are interested in the truth, rather than making the facts fit their beliefs?

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

Wow I actually read that. What dishonest piece of wombat pooh.

Please provide evidence that the information in that link is incorrect. I didn't originally find that at CARM. It's standard knowledge. CARM came up first in my search.

Dishonest because they are inferring that we have the bible in the second century where only a couple of scraps have been found. For the comparison documents only the near full versions are counted where earlier scraps and references abound for them.

Is that dishonest enough? I notice that you keep talking about the Church fathers. What is the evidence for these guys? Most of what the Church fathers said come to us from Eusibus in the fourth century. Writer comtemporary to Eusibus say that he had a huge political axe to grind. How much about the "First Fathers" did he make up to suit his needs.

I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

Quote

The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

Quote

It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.

... scholars believe his later letters, known as "the Pastorals," are forgeries, which contradict his earlier letters.Like the letters attributed to the other disciples, they were written in the second century CE to combat internal divisions in the Church. But some of the earlier letters, while suffering from editing, additions, and the usual " cut and paste" treatment, are widely believed to have been written by Paul.

The forged letters were written to counter Gnosticism, attacking "many deceivers" who "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh"

I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

Quote

The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

Quote

It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.

Huh, that's weird. I always thought the temple under St Peter was a temple to Cybele, a Phrygian godess akin to Gaïa...

ETA: Oh, now I see Ba'al was also worshipped there. Ok then...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

In regard to gnostic writings, please bear in mind the late dates that most of those were written in comparison to the books that were included in scripture.

Also, back to the early church fathers. Certain books were not accepted for good reason...some didn't even yet exist...others obviously were in total contrast to what 1st hand witnesses attested to in their writings.

Name one first hand witness of Jesus that can be shown to have written a book of the Bible (any Bible).

Plenty evidence of that, but I'm sure you've read it all, as you seem to think you're a theologian. I'm not offering anymore links...find them yourselves. Most refuse to read and those who do scan and throw up strawmen.

Then again, anything you read that supports early writers and witnesses, you'll wave off as incorrect even if you have no solid evidence to refute the fact. Get into the early church father's. Eye opener.

Carry on....

You keep talking about the Church fathers as though they are totally reliable. For the most part we don't even have copies of what they wrote but rely on what Eusibus wrote in the fourth century

... scholars believe his later letters, known as "the Pastorals," are forgeries, which contradict his earlier letters.Like the letters attributed to the other disciples, they were written in the second century CE to combat internal divisions in the Church. But some of the earlier letters, while suffering from editing, additions, and the usual " cut and paste" treatment, are widely believed to have been written by Paul.

The forged letters were written to counter Gnosticism, attacking "many deceivers" who "do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh"

Paul had gained too much authority that they could get rid of him.

Read it. Pretty good book. I need to dig it out again.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Actually, I don't know of any place in the Bible where it says it's infallible or the word of God.

There are words attributed to god spoken by people, but no self-authentication of the text itself.

I'm not sure how there could be since the various manuscripts don't seem to be aware of each other, and weren't assembled until a Roman general got the hots for them.

Many folks point to these passages as the indication (of course, most rely on the "god-breathed" translation as opposed to KJV use of the word "inspired"):

Quote

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Personally, one has to really be grasping at straws to take the above passage as indicating that the bible is the infallible word of God. Folks who insist such (or those, as Woodbine points out, who insist it is self-authenticating), don't have much faith and desire anything to prop up their wishful thinking.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

IDists (like FtK) claim that archaeology is a good science because it follows the principles of ID. Yet the science of archaeology tells us that much of the historical aspects of the bible is wrong... (can you see where this is going?)

So, if ID is right, then the Bible is wrong (and therefore God is probably not the designer).

If the Bible is right, then ID is completely wrong and IDiots are arguing about something that's completely wrong (but we knew that).

The other option, of course, is that they are both wrong, but for unrelated reasons.

Since we know that ID has produced nothing of value...ever. We also know that the majority of the events as described in the Bible are wrong.

I'll go with number three. ID and Bible are both wrong, but for different reasons.

Of course, the ID and creationists can't accept that, so they MUST accept one of the two prior conclusions.

Which is it FtK? Is the Bible right or is ID right? It's logically shown that they are mutually exclusive.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I would like to draw attention to "The Jesus Mysteries" by Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke. I have read it many times and have also read the extensive notes section as well as the list of literature references.

One may disagree with the authors on the conclusions they draw but we nevertheless - unless we have sold out to the Bible - may want to reconsider some of our thoughts on the origins and the content of the NT.

I quote from the first page:

Quote

The Unthinkable Thought

Jesus said, "It is to those who are worthy of my Mysteries that I tell my Mysteries."

The Gospel of Thomas

On the site where the Vatican now stands there once stood a Pagan temple. Here Pagan priests observed sacred ceremonies, which early Christians found so disturbing that they tried to erase all evidence of them ever having been practiced. What were these shocking Pagan rites? Gruesome sacrifices or obscene orgies perhaps? This is what we have been led to believe. But the truth is far stranger than this fiction.Where today the gathered faithful revere their Lord Jesus Christ, the ancients worshiped another godman who, like Jesus, had been miraculously born on December 25 before three shepherds. In this ancient sanctuary Pagan congregations once glorified a Pagan redeemer who, like Jesus, was said to have ascended to heaven and to have promised to come again at the end of time to judge the quick and the dead. On the same spot where the Pope celebrates the Catholic mass, Pagan priests also celebrated a symbolic meal of bread and wine in memory of their savior who, just like Jesus, had declared:

He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.

In "The Gnostic Gospels", Elaine Pagels argue:

Quote

It is the winners who write history-their way. No wonder, then, that the traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" and their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate-at least to their own satisfaction-that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided by the Holy Spirit." But the discoveries [of the Gnostic gospels] at Nag Hammadi reopen fundamental questions.

Huh, that's weird. I always thought the temple under St Peter was a temple to Cybele, a Phrygian godess akin to Gaïa...

ETA: Oh, now I see Ba'al was also worshipped there. Ok then...

Freke and Gandy have been criticized by biblical scholars (and others) in their "looseness" with the facts. They have some good stuff, but anything they say should be checked out with other sources. There is no excuse for shoddy scholarship.

(and, crapcakes that I lost my hard drive - I think the links were there since I can't find them anymore. A lot was in the old internet infidels discussions of a few years back. I think, perhaps, that Higgaion had something, and Richard Carrier did as well. Apologies for the lack of links and sources)

(also, although I do read such scholars - and listen to their podcasts - as Robert M Price, and find his arguments somewhat compelling in his books, you have to take it all with a grain of salt, and the official story with a whole freaking shaker of salt!)

(also, congrats on the future wedding - was too busy this past however long to post anything much)

This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.

Actually not a scrap of any original manuscript exists (or is known to exist).

I could be wrong, but I believe the oldest manuscript dealing with Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas, which is Gnostic in tone.

Perhaps god preserved it so we would know it is the most reliable history of Jesus.

Apologists: old = original

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting (because the fundies won't even discuss) the whole concept of the gnostics and the mysteries.

Oh man, what Paul did to the religion of Jesus.

"old = original"

Strawman. That is not stated at all. If you read it thoroughly, it states specifically why the Bible is the most reliable manuscript of antiquity. It says nothing about whether we have the original works...we don't, and no one claims to. But, we have *very* old fragments to base our claims of reliability upon.

It also proves how accurately the documents have been copied throughout generations. Also, if you had destroyed all of the Bible. The early Christian church fathers combined have quoted it almost in it's entirety. Just another interesting tidbit.

The significance of the dates on the chart are worth note.

Read for content and meaning rather than throw up something that is not mentioned and act as if that is what is being claimed.

Accuracy has nothing to do with how true something is. Also, we only have accuracy to the earliest manuscripts, and even then there are many scribal errors and additions (the adulteress in John, I believe, comes to mind). Given the history and the way the Church took over the preservation of knowledge (as well as it's destruction), why wouldn't there be a lot of bibles around?

Again, that says nothing about its accuracy - its relationship to reality. I can bet that there are a lot of copies of early comic books - does that mean that Peter Parker existed? Will future woo-merchants look back on ancient comics and wonder at our religion that worshipped a wall-crawling human? He certainly was persecuted enough.

The earliest document we have is a scrap - P52, I think - that dates to maybe the second century (?). I'm not clear on it from memory. It's a fragment of what we now know as John. I don't think it has any name associated with it other than the later one we gave it.

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G